Wednesday, March 18, 2015

In case you hadn’t heard, the NHL is toying with the idea of moving
toward a 3-on-3 format for its regular-season overtime in order to
reduce the number of games decided by shootout. This is stupid idea,
just as it was, is and always will be a stupid idea to have shootouts
decide the outcome of games.

I understand that no one likes ties. We want to see a winner declared
in our sporting events, not a stalemate after 60-65 minutes of play.
But there’s a difference between suffering through a tie and
fundamentally changing the way a game is played.

The NHL has already tinkered with removing players from the ice.
Partly due to a desire to open up the game, in regular-season overtimes
teams play with just four skaters as opposed to the normal five. Now the
league wants to move to 3-on-3. And if that doesn’t work, why not move
down to 2-on-2? Or what about a shootout!?! Oh wait…

There is a vast difference between playing 5-on-5 and 3-on-3 to the
point in which the game simply is not same, just as a 3-on-3 game of
basketball, while fun, isn’t used in the NBA to decide games because it
becomes a different contest then. In fact, none of the other major
sports decides to change the number of players on the field just to
liven up overtime. The NFL doesn’t play 7-on-7 in overtime. Baseball
doesn’t take away a couple fielders in extra innings. And even soccer
doesn’t go to 8-on-8 in extra time. Players are only sent off with red
cards or two yellows.

Hockey is meant to be played 5-on-5 (skaters, that is). It’s the very
basis of the sport. Tinkering with rules to improve the game will
always happen, but reducing the numbers of players alters the foundation
of the game. Removing one skater from each side was bad enough, but
taking away two players aside turns NHL hockey into something completely
different.

I understand that players like it. I understand that fans may get
excited over this. But I just can’t get on board. Is it better than the
shootout deciding games? Sure. But that doesn’t mean it’s best. Two
wrongs don’t make a right — they make for a different game entirely.

My solution? Bring back ties. Yes, I hate them, just like I hate
neckties, but I’m a traditionalist at heart. Go back to ties, remove the
automatic one point for reaching overtime (no team that loses should be
rewarded with a point) and bring back hockey that actually resulted in
full games of real hockey. -The Rev

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Another Risk with No Reward?

Two offseasons in a row, Chip Kelly cut ties with one of his most explosive offensive players. After year one at the helm, he flat-out cut DeSean Jackson
after the brash wideout had his best professional season ever. And
yesterday, he traded Pro Bowl running back LeSean McCoy, just one season
removed from being the NFL’s leading rusher. For a guy who has not won a
single playoff game — though has won 20 games in his first two seasons
— it’s asking an awful lot.

In return for McCoy, the Eagles get a very talented, very young
linebacker in Kiko Alonso, an area they were desperately in need of. In
addition, it frees up even more cap space for Philadelphia, giving the
Eagles perhaps the most flexibility of any team in the NFL.

On the surface, the deal seems crazy. Throw in Chip’s propensity to
bring in former Oregon Ducks, like Alonso, and the move isn’t exactly
the most popular in Philadelphia. It’s doubly painful when losing a
player everyone seemed to like and everybody definitely enjoyed watching
play.

But running backs are a dime a dozen in the NFL, and the Eagles
needed help at the linebacker position. If Alonso is healthy, he’s one
of the best the league, and at just 24, he could be an anchor for a long
time. On top of that, the Eagles are in the best position of any
would-be contender to make waves in free agency — and the draft. I’m not
sure if I’m 100 percent sold on trading away so much talent every
offseason, but if there was a team in the NFL who could afford to make
such a bold move, it’s the Philadelphia Eagles. – The Rev